REPEATED READING AND WIDE READING:
A COMPARISON OF TWO FLUENCY-BASED APPROACHES
Michelle McMillen
B.A., University of California, Davis, 2001
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2009
REPEATED READING AND WIDE READING:
A COMPARISON OF TWO FLUENCY-BASED APPROACHES
A Thesis
by
Michelle McMillen
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Nancy Cecil
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Kay Moore
____________________________
Date
ii
Name of Student: Michelle McMillen
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Rita M. Johnson
Department of Teacher Education
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
REPEATED READING AND WIDE READING:
A COMPARISON OF TWO FLUENCY-BASED APPROACHES
by
Michelle McMillen
Statement of Problem
As children learn to read, they must make the transition from decoding to fluent
reading so comprehension can occur. Best teaching practices for helping children
make this shift involve repeated reading. Repeated reading ultimately provides a
means for students to develop their reading fluency by eliciting more practice reading
through repetition. Can a wide reading approach without repetition produce similar, or
perhaps greater results than repeated reading? The question of this study is whether the
benefits of repeated reading
Sources of Data
A total of 30 second grade students from a Title One school in California,
required to meet fluency scores of 80 words per minute by end of school year
standards, were divided into two matched groups. Both groups received fluency
practice four days per week for 20 minutes each day. The control group practiced wide
iv
reading four different texts per day without repetition. The experimental group
engaged in repeated reading of a single text per day for a total of four reads. Pre
assessment data and post assessment data were collected using the Qualitative Reading
Inventory 4. Based on the results of the pre assessment, students were matched to their
independent reading levels.
The intervention took place over the course of a four-week period. Using the
Qualitative Reading Inventory 4, post assessment data was collected to compare the
differences in scores between both groups. The resulting data were analyzed using a t
test of statistical significance.
Conclusions Reached
Initial analysis of the data determined there were no significant differences in the
fluency rates between the control group and the experimental group. Further
examination of the results however, revealed similar fluency increases for both groups.
These findings suggest that wide reading practices benefit the development of reading
as much as repetition.
, Committee Chair
Nancy Cecil
Date
v
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my students. You inspire me everyday.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
With the utmost appreciation for their guidance, support, and expertise, the
author acknowledges Nancy Cecil, Kay Moore, and Rita Johnson.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication.................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Rationale ........................................................................................................... 1
Methodology..................................................................................................... 2
Definitions of Terms......................................................................................... 4
Limitations and Generalizations ....................................................................... 6
Summary and Overview ................................................................................... 7
2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ........................................................... 8
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8
Defining Reading Fluency .............................................................................. 10
Summary of Fluency Definitions ................................................................... 12
Importance of Fluency .................................................................................... 13
Summary of Fluency Importance ................................................................... 14
Repeated Reading ........................................................................................... 15
Variations of Repeated Reading ..................................................................... 18
Summary of Repeated Reading Activities ..................................................... 24
viii
Review of Literature Related to Repeated Reading ....................................... 26
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 28
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 30
Introduction .................................................................................................... 30
Sample Population .......................................................................................... 31
Pre-Testing ..................................................................................................... 32
Testing Instruments ........................................................................................ 38
Data Analysis Methods................................................................................... 40
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 40
4. DATA AND RESULTS ....................................................................................... 42
Results from the t Test .................................................................................... 43
Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................. 47
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 51
5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ................ 52
Introduction .................................................................................................... 52
Overview of the Study .................................................................................... 52
Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................... 54
Instructional Implications and Conclusions ................................................... 55
Summary......................................................................................................... 56
Appendix. Reading Attitude Survey......................................................................... 58
References .................................................................................................................. 61
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Subject Data Pertaining to Initial Fluency and Gender .................................. 31
2.
Independent Reading Group Levels ............................................................... 35
3.
Assignment to Groups .................................................................................... 36
4.
Totals of Levels for Each Group .................................................................... 37
5.
QRI-4 Levels Equivalent to Read Naturally Passages ................................... 39
6.
Fluency Scores Used to Compare the Experimental (X1) and the
Control Group (X2) ................................................................................... 43
7.
Comparing Pre-treatment Fluency Scores and Post-treatment
Fluency Scores for the Experimental Group ............................................. 45
8.
Comparing Pre-treatment Fluency Scores and Post-treatment
Fluency Scores for the Control Group....................................................... 46
9.
Answers to Reading Attitude Survey ............................................................. 50
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In all aspects of society, reading is an essential component. A chef reads to
cook new recipes, a pilot reads to navigate a plane, and an architect reads to plan the
construction of a new building. For children, reading seems an enormous task that
begins with the learning of the alphabetic principle (Adams, 1990). First, children
must learn to recognize symbols as letters and then associate sounds to these letters.
Next, children must learn to combine the sounds to make meaning. In these beginning
stages of reading, the process is very labored and slow. To gain reading proficiency,
requires much cognitive effort and practice over time. Children who acquire the
necessary skills in word identification and comprehension make the transition from
beginning to proficient reader in just a few years. Children who struggle with
developing these skills, however, need additional instruction and support to become
fluent (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).
Rationale
One popular practice used to increase fluency is repeated reading. Repeated
reading involves students reading a text over and over again until fluency goals are
met (Samuels, 1979). Through repetition, word recognition becomes more accurate
and automatic eventually leading to greater comprehension. Studies conducted on
repeated reading agree that the method produces gains in students’ word recognition
skills, reading rate, and comprehension (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1984; Tan &
Nicholson, 1997). Other studies suggest that the benefits of repeated reading are due to
2
the added practice of reading connected text and not repetition (Kuhn, 2004-2005;
Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). These studies cite wide reading as an alternative approach to
repetitious reading. Findings from a review of literature on fluent reading (Kuhn &
Stahl), report that wide reading is as effective an approach as repeated reading in
producing fluency gains. For the purposes of this study, the relationship between
repeated reading and fluency will be investigated to determine whether gains in
fluency result from repetition or from the extensive reading of connected text.
Motivational factors will also be addressed to discern whether repeated reading or
wide reading approaches to fluency development affect a student’s desire to read.
Methodology
A total of 30 second grade students who were expected to meet fluency gains
of 80 words per minute for district-wide measures were studied. Out of the 30 students
that were tested, 70% were White and 30% were Hispanic. Twelve were boys and 18
were girls. Two students were pulled out for speech twice a week, two had been
retained, and six students were English Language Learners. The school in which these
students attended was classified as Title One and 78% of the school’s population
qualified for free or reduced lunch.
Data collection for this study took place over an eight-week period. Multiple
assessments were used to measure sight word recognition, reading accuracy, reading
rate, and reading comprehension. Students were tested, using the Qualitative Reading
Inventory 4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006), prior to the beginning of the study and after the
study to determine if repetition or wide reading practice produced greater fluency
3
gains. During the pre- and post-tests, the readings were tape recorded to allow the
researcher to make more precise calculations of accurate word recognition, reading
rate, and comprehension.
Errors were recorded as any words missed, omitted, substituted, or given to the
student by the researcher after a three second delay. Accuracy was scored by dividing
the number of words read correctly from the number of words in the passage. Rate
scores were recorded using a formula that calculated the number of words read,
multiplied by 60, divided by the total time spent reading, minus any errors.
Comprehension scores were based on the number of explicit and implicit questions a
student answered correctly following the reading of a passage.
Based on the results of the pre-assessment, subjects were given a passage from
the QRI 4 that corresponded to their highest independent score on a graded word list.
Passages ranged in length from 68 words to 154 words. Independent reading levels
from the QRI 4 were then correlated to passages from Read Naturally. The source,
Read Naturally, was utilized for this study for three reasons. First, Read Naturally was
already a source available at the school the subjects attended. Second, the source
offered a variety of texts at differing levels. Finally, when compared to levels from the
QRI 4, Read Naturally corresponded closely for independent reading levels (see Table
4 in Chapter 3).
Once the study began, students met with the researcher in small groups every
day for 20 minutes based on their assigned program. Subjects assigned the treatment
were given one text a day to read repeatedly four times. In the control group, subjects
4
were given four texts a day and each text was read only once. Both groups were
required to answer comprehension questions after reading each passage.
Before, during, and at the end of the four week intervention, students were
assessed for reading fluency rate. Reading fluency was measured in words correct per
minute and compared to a control group whose exposure to print was more varied than
the experimental group who practiced reading repeatedly.
A reading attitude survey was also administered to all subjects, two weeks after
the intervention, to determine if motivational factors influenced results in the study
(see Appendix).
T values were calculated to determine whether the scores from the
experimental group and the control group were statistically significant. In addition,
data analysis included a comparison of the groups’ pre-treatment and post-treatment
fluency scores.
Definitions of Terms
For the purposes of this research, the following definitions were used.
Accuracy - the total number of words read correctly divided by the total
number of words read.
Comprehension – a reader’s ability to understand what is read as measured by
the number of questions correctly answered after reading a story.
Corrective Feedback - students are told what words they misread.
5
Fluency - includes reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension. Prosody is
viewed as more of a byproduct of fluency than a component (Pressley, 2006), and will
therefore not be included in the definition of fluency for this study.
Frustration Reading Level – The level of reading at which a student cannot
decode and/or comprehend what is read. Measured by reading a text with less than
90% accuracy.
Independent Reading Level – The level at which a student can read and fully
comprehend text without assistance from the teacher. Measured by reading a text with
98-100% accuracy.
Instructional Reading Level – The level at which a student can successfully
read with teacher support. Measured by reading a text with 90-97% accuracy.
Reading Practice – the act of reading at one’s independent level
Reading Rate – the number of words read, multiplied by 60, divided by the
total time spent reading, minus any errors
Repeated Reading - a text that is read more than once.
Scaffolded - reading with the support of a teacher.
Time spent reading - the amount of time a student spends reading
independently.
Wide Reading – The extensive reading of nonrepetitive text
6
Limitations and Generalizations
Limitations
In the course of implementing this study, limitations, which may have some
affect on the validity or reliability of the results, occurred. One issue that arose was
that the study only included one grade level with a limited number of students. Second
grade was chosen because the transition from decoding to fluent reading typically
occurs in second grade, however, students across grade-levels often exhibit a need for
fluency development and could benefit from the instructional practices offered in this
study that increase fluency. Second grade was also chosen because that is the grade
taught by the researcher. Further research should include subjects from different grade
levels.
Another limitation of this study was the small sample size. The limited number
of students used in the study was the result of several factors. First, the subjects were
chosen from the available population of students at the school in which the researcher
worked. Second, since the design of the study took place during regular school hours,
the researcher could only meet with subjects available for instruction during time
scheduled for intervention. Subjects who needed interventions apart from fluency
development could not be included. It is important to note that data and research
collected during regular school hours for this study was intentional. The researcher
wanted the results to be applicable to other classroom teachers during the school day.
7
Generalizations
Since the subjects of this study were chosen from the available population of
students at the school in which the researcher worked, the sample was not random.
Any generalizations of the findings need to be limited to similar subjects and schools
to address the errors of having a non-random sample.
Opportunities for the further development of this research extend to studying more
classrooms and grade levels. Future research could also include longitudinal studies to
determine any lasting effects of fluency gains.
Summary and Overview
Chapter 1 of this thesis outlined the theory and practice of fluency
development related to this study. The issue of repetition versus wide reading was
determined the main topic of research with motivational effects being secondary.
Chapter 2 will provide a more detailed analysis of the history of research conducted on
fluency development and repeated reading. In Chapter 3, the methodology of this
study will be described including the treatment given to the subjects and the measuring
tools and procedures used to gather data. Analysis of the results will be examined in
Chapter 4 and a graphic representation of how the treatments influenced student
fluency will be provided. Discussion of the results on repeated reading versus wide
reading will be presented in Chapter 5 along with implications for future research
pertaining to fluency development.
8
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction
Reading is perhaps the most essential skill a person learns in a lifetime. It
requires multiple mental functions acting at the same time for purposes of decoding
and comprehension. For beginning or struggling readers, comprehension is difficult to
attain due to the cognitive attention spent on decoding words. Before comprehension
ensues, decoding skills must become automatic. As a reader makes this transition from
decoding words to comprehending and understanding text, fluency development
becomes an essential component of reading. Reading fluency allows the brain more
mental capacity for comprehension. To achieve reading fluency, multiple
opportunities to practice are necessary.
To date, instructional time in the classroom that focuses on developing fluency
has been limited. Although fluency is a critical component of reading proficiency, it is
often overlooked as a necessary part of reading instruction. In fact, a study by
Gambrell (1984) found that children in the primary grades read connected text for less
than an average of 9 minutes a day. The same study also observed struggling readers
reading as little as 1 or 2 minutes per day. Based on the results of Gambrell’s study
and research supporting fluency development (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; National Reading
Panel, 2000; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003), there is an obvious need to increase the
amount of time students spend practicing reading connected text in school.
9
Previously, studies on fluency recommended the use of repeated reading as a
means to increase word recognition rate, accuracy, and comprehension. Students who
participated in repeated reading activities developed their reading skills to levels of
proficiency through exposure to repetitious text. More recently, the idea that the
benefits of repeated reading were simply the product of the increased amount of time
students spent reading when engaged in repeated reading, and not repetition, was
considered (Kuhn et al., 2006). The results from a study by Kuhn (2004-2005)
supported this idea with findings that scaffolded wide reading of nonrepetitive text
produced similar gains in fluency as repeated reading. It is important to note that the
wide reading treatment group Kuhn used in the study had some repetition. Given these
results, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of repeated reading and
wide reading of nonrepetitive text on the development of fluency in second grade
students.
In this chapter, definitions of fluency will be provided. A discussion of how
different researchers define and measure fluency is important to establish which
method of measurement is most appropriate for this study. Additionally, the
importance of fluency will be examined with regards to word recognition and
comprehension. Alternative approaches used to improve fluency will be evaluated and
discussed in terms of what research says about the effectiveness of their use. More
specifically, the practice of repeated reading will be thoroughly investigated with
respects to this study.
10
Defining Reading Fluency
Currently, a common definition of fluency does not exist. Possibly the most
narrow definition of fluency equates the concept with the speed or rate in which a text
is read (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997). The term rate refers to the number of
words read per minute (WPM). To measure rate, students read for a one-minute “cold”
(unrehearsed) reading. The number of words they read are then counted and recorded
as their rate. In a report by the U.S. Department of Education (1995), fluent readers
were found to recognize words considerably faster (126 to 162 words per minute) than
those who read less fluently (65 to 89 words per minute). In this report, rate was
measured as correct words per minute (CWPM). During a timed reading, the total
number of words a student read was recorded and any errors made were deducted to
determine the total number of words read correctly. Measuring correct words per
minute to assess rate seems more comprehensive than relying on words per minute
alone as it excludes words read incorrectly. A more accurate representation of fluency
can be achieved through the assessment of correct words per minute.
In addition to rate, some sources define fluency to include accuracy (LaBerge
& Samuels, 1974; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2006). Accuracy is
measured by dividing the total number of words read by the total amount of words
read correctly. Errors are subtracted from the total number of words read to find the
amount of words read correctly. Recording of errors include omissions, substitutions,
insertions, and words provided to the reader after a three second delay. Accuracy
scores are recorded as percentages with 98%-100% representing independent levels of
11
word recognition (Barr, Sadow, & Blachowics, 1990; Ekwall, 1989; Harris & Sipay,
1990; Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). When accuracy percentages fall below the
independent level, fluency weakens. In order to maintain fluency, practice is necessary
at the independent level.
To establish national norms for oral reading fluency, Hasbrouck and Tindal
(2006) compiled data from geographically and demographically diverse school
districts in 23 states across America. Based on their research, percentile scores for
students in grades 2-8 were reported for fall, winter, and spring. Results from their
study indicated that oral reading fluency scores that fall within 10 words above or
below the 50th percentile are “ within the normal, expected, and appropriate range for
a student at that grade level at that time of year” (p. 640). Scores that fall below the
50th percentile are a sign of students who may be struggling in their effort to become a
proficient reader and who may need additional instruction and support.
In conjunction with rate and accuracy, some definitions of fluency include
comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001).
As explained in a report by Kuhn et al. (2006), “fluency is seen as a factor in reader’s
ability to understand and enjoy text” (p. 359). When words are read accurately and
effortlessly, more attention can be spent on reading to learn and reading for pleasure.
Fast and accurate reading that results in low comprehension is ineffectual and
purposeless as meaning is lost. Therefore, fluency instruction should not occur without
assessments of comprehension (Pressley, 2006). If the ultimate goal of reading is to
understand, then fluency may be a means to that end.
12
Other definitions of fluency take into consideration reading with appropriate
expression and intonation (Cowie, Douglas-Cowie, & Wichmann, 2002; Dowhower,
1987; Schrieber, 1991; Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, 2004).
By this definition, reading should sound like a conversation that flows freely and
naturally. The term prosody is often used to describe reading that follows the same
patterns as speech including intonation, inflection, and pauses. According to Pressley
(2006), prosodic reading is more likely evidence of fluent reading not a source for
building fluency. Therefore, instruction and assessment of prosody may be futile in the
development of fluency.
Summary of Fluency Definitions
Perhaps the reason there are so many differing views of fluency is the lack of
agreement on its role in reading development. Some researchers believe oral reading
fluency is the result of decoding and comprehension (Gough, 1984; Rumelhart, 1994).
They posit that fluency ensues when decoding and comprehension skills develop.
Instruction that follows this logic includes explicit teaching in phonics and
comprehension strategies such as summarizing, interpreting, evaluating, and
compare/contrast. The goal of reading instruction from this viewpoint is for a reader to
progress through a sequence of stages. First, a reader develops decoding skills to a
level of mastery. After phonemic mastery is attained, the reader attempts to make
meaning of text through the use of multiple comprehension strategies. When decoding
and comprehension skills are learned fluency follows.
13
An alternative explanation is that fluency development contributes to gains in
decoding and comprehension (Blachman et al., 2004; Tan & Nicholson, 1997). In this
view, fluency instruction adds to overall increases in decoding and comprehension.
Instead of teaching reading in a series of stages, skills and strategies are taught
simultaneously. From this perspective, progress in one area is thought to increase
skills in another.
Whether fluency is the cause of proficient reading or the result, a
comprehensive definition should include measures of rate, accuracy, and
comprehension. These measures examine how fast a reader decodes, what percentage
of words a reader is able to decode correctly, and how the reader understands and
makes sense of text read. Without rate, accuracy, and comprehension, the term
“fluency” remains very shallow. Fluency defined solely as “rate” fails to examine how
well a reader identifies and interprets words. Similarly, fluency defined only in terms
of comprehension disregards the accuracy and pace at which the text was read. A
balance of rate, accuracy, and comprehension seems the most comprehensive method
of defining and assessing fluency.
Importance of Fluency
Although there are varying definitions and measures of fluency, many
researchers can agree on the characteristics a fluent reader exhibits. Fluent readers
have the ability to recognize words both accurately and automatically (Gough &
Tunmer, 1986; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley,
2006; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Rasinski, 2003) while utilizing comprehension
14
strategies as they read (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). The theory of automaticity,
developed by LaBerge and Samuels(1974), probably best explains why fluency is so
critical to the development of proficient reading. The ability to recognize words
automatically allows proficient readers the cognitive capacity to comprehend the text
they read. As words are decoded effortlessly, cognitive effort can be distributed more
on skills such as summarizing, interpreting, and making judgments about text. In
contrast, when a reader struggles with automatic word recognition, the ability to
comprehend weakens. In a non-fluent reader, decoding words monopolizes cognitive
attention. To develop word recognition skills to the level of automaticity portrayed by
a fluent reader, requires extensive practice.
Summary of Fluency Importance
The importance of fluency to reading proficiency is apparent in the relationship
between word recognition and understanding. At the word level, readers must be able
to identify letter-sound relationships and attach meaning for comprehension to occur
(Pressley, 2006). When decoding is labored and slow, the ability to comprehend
weakens. In contrast, when word recognition is automatic, more cognitive attention
can be spent on comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Evidence shows that
fluency provides readers with the opportunity to gain higher levels of comprehension
while reading a text (Dahl, 1979; Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999;
Dowhower, 1987, 1989; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Samuels, 1979; Stahl & Heubach, 2005;
Therrien, 2004). Further research conducted by Tan and Nicholson (1997) found that
readers who were trained to recognize key words rapidly were able to answer more
15
comprehension questions than those who were taught the meanings of the targeted
words. In fact, those who read the words fluently had better understanding of the
targeted words than the students who were specifically taught the meanings.
Comprehension gains in this case directly related to the ability to read words fluently.
If the ultimate goal of reading is to understand, then fluency development can
provide a means to that end. However, fluency practice alone is not enough. In his
book, Reading Instruction That Works, Pressley (2006) cautions against reading
instruction that focuses solely on rapid word identification. Students encouraged to
read for speed may achieve increases in word identification, but may also demonstrate
a diminished ability to remember what they read. In other words, the benefits of
fluency are negated if there is little recall of the text read. Therefore, when developing
fluency assessments, comprehension should always be included.
Repeated Reading
The complexity of fluency development necessitates multiple opportunities for
practice. Reading a text multiple times is often referred to as repeated reading
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Samuels, 1979). Studies researching the value of repeated
reading have found results indicating increases in reading comprehension, speed, and
accuracy (Dahl, 1979; Daly et al., 1999; Dowhower, 1987, 1989; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003;
Samuels, 1979; Stahl & Heubach, 2005; Therrien, 2004). A meta-analysis of 33
studies (Therrien) revealed that repeated reading improved students’ overall reading
fluency and comprehension. Researchers found an average increase of .83 in students’
fluency scores and an increase of .67 in students’ comprehension scores. Score
16
increases were even greater in studies where students read passages aloud to an adult.
In fact, fluency and comprehension gains made from repeated reading interventions
conducted by adults were more than three times larger than those obtained by students
in interventions conducted by peers.
According to Kubina and Therrien (2006), repeatedly reading passages to a
skilled adult or tutor is one of the three instructional components that help make
repeated reading a more effective intervention. Another component that should be
considered when implementing repeated reading in the classroom is providing
corrective feedback
When combined with corrective feedback, repeated reading showed even
greater increases in students’ fluency scores (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Therrien, 2004). Students reading a text repeatedly were told
what words they misread so on subsequent reads, the students would have greater
accuracy and comprehension.
The third and final instructional component to include in repeated reading
interventions is progress monitoring. Students who monitor their progress while
reading, produce greater fluency gains than repeated reading alone (Gibb & Wilder,
2002; Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002). As students monitor their progress in reading,
they keep record of improvements in speed and accuracy. During a study by Eckert,
Ardoin, Daly, and Martens (2002), students taught to monitor their reading progress
were more motivated to read than students who were asked to read repeatedly. Thus,
progress monitoring seems to provide a motivational component to reading the same
17
text repeatedly. Without progress monitoring, students have been found to get bored
with the method of repeated reading (Moyer, 1982). Students question the reasoning
behind repeated reading when they are told to just read for practice. Setting goals and
purpose are necessary steps to include before repeated reading begins. Engagement in
reading is held through the meeting of goals and understanding of purpose.
When speed and accuracy are targeted during repeated reading some studies
found no substantial improvement in comprehension (Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany, 1979;
Jenkins, Barksdale, & Clinton, 1978; Samuels, Dahl, & Archwamety, 1974). Pressley
and Afflerbach (1995) explained that comprehension strategies, such as relating prior
knowledge to ideas in a text and rereading to alleviate confusion, should be taught in
conjunction with fluency to produce the greatest gains.
More recently, Stahl & Heubach (2005) found scaffolded reading before
repeated reading produced greater gains in comprehension, rate, and accuracy, than
repeated reading alone. In scaffolded reading, a proficient reader models how to read a
text fluently. The less proficient reader then practices reading the text in the same way
the proficient reader demonstrated. For the purposes of repeated reading, texts read at
an individual’s instructional level should be scaffolded (Gibb & Wilder, 2002; Scott &
Shearer-Lingo, 2002). Scaffolding is less necessary for a student reading a text at their
independent level however, corrective feedback and progress monitoring are still
important factors.
18
Variations of Repeated Reading
To improve fluency, readers may participate in a range of literacy activities
that utilize repeated reading such as reading poetry, partner reading, reader’s theatre,
and repeated reading. The goal of these activities is to provide multiple opportunities
for reading practice. According to the theory of Automatic Word Processing, many
opportunities for practice are necessary to attain automaticity (LaBerge & Samuels,
1974). Automaticity refers to the ability to perform a skill effortlessly and with little
cognitive effort.
One method used to increase fluency is reading poetry. Poetry lends itself well
to fluency development with its relatively short text, fun subject matter, and harmony
with repeated reading. Fluency practice with poetry typically involves students
listening to a poem read by a more proficient reader, practice reading the poem with
assistance, and practice reading the poem independently until mastery is attained. As
hypothesized by Wilfong (2008), mastery of a short poem causes students to feel
confident and successful early on so that later, they will continue to engage in reading
more text.
Results from the same study, found an average gain of 45 correct words per
minute for students participating in a poetry academy that used poetry as the primary
means to develop fluency. When compared with the control group, students
participating in the poetry academy also made significant gains in word recognition
accuracy. Similar results were found in other studies using poetry (Homan, Klesius, &
Hite, 1993; Moyer, 1982; Rasinski, 2000) and short texts (Rasiniski, Padak, Linek, &
19
Sturtevant, 1994) to develop fluency. Positive increases in correct words per minute
and word recognition lend credence to the use of poetry to build fluency through the
use of rhyme, rhythm, and repetition.
Another approach to increasing fluency is partner reading. Pairs of students
work together to aide each other through a text. While one partner reads, the other
provides feedback by correcting any misread words. In a series of three consecutive
studies (Yurick, Robinson, Cartridge, Lo, & Evans, 2006), researchers found overall
increases in oral reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension when students participated
in peer-mediated repeated reading.
First, students were trained how to administer error corrections using a scripted
correction procedure. When errors occurred during a peer-mediated reading, the
students referred to a three-step correction procedure. The first step required students
to say, “Stop and sound it out.” For the second step, students prompted, “Say the
group of words” that consisted of the miscued word, the word preceding it, and the
word following it. The final step of the error correction procedure had students choose
between two corrections. Students either had their partner “Say the group of three
words fast.” or “Say the group of words backward and forward.” After four months of
peer-mediated reading, students from experiment group 1 made gains of at least 68
words per minute, 4.5% accuracy, and answered 42% more comprehension questions
correctly. Similar results were found for the second and third experimental groups
indicating a positive relationship between peer-mediated reading and increases in oral
reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension.
20
Other studies on peer-mediated reading found that students made three times as
much progress as was expected (Topping, 1989) and after only 6 to 10 weeks students
made gains of at least six months in reading (Rasinski, 2003). The main factor
considered in these studies on peer-mediated reading was the partnership. According
to Rasiniski (2003), “The key is to have the child read orally with another, more fluent
reader who provides support and adjusts the pace and volume to provide maximum
assistance” (p. 29). In addition, students who work as the teacher or tutor may also
benefit from the partnership in peer-mediated reading. Working in a partnership can
lead to greater confidence in one’s ability to read and may motivate students to read
more.
Reader’s theatre is a common method used in the classroom to increase
students’ ability to read fluently. Reader’s theatre involves students practicing a script
based on a story for the purposes of performing in front of an audience. The script is
rehearsed and read repeatedly until mastery is achieved. One study by Keehn (2003),
found that second grade students of varying reading abilities made significant gains in
rate, phrasing, fluidity, and expressiveness after rereading a script 12 to 20 times over
the course of four days. In addition, these students made increases in comprehension
and word recognition measures, as well as, averaged 30 more words per minute in
rate. Motivational effects were also apparent as students maintained interest for the
nine weeks the study was implemented. Similar findings on the motivational benefits
of reader’s theatre were reported by Worthy & Broaddus (2001). Students were
21
willing to practice reading a script multiple times for the purpose of performing well
in front of an audience.
The use of reader’s theatre to develop fluency should include three factors.
First, the text should be manageable for students to achieve mastery. Reading
materials should match students’ reading ability. Keehn (2003) proposes a range of
95% -98% accuracy as an appropriate measure of readability. Averages falling below
95% accuracy may be too difficult and lead to reading frustration. The second
component to consider when implementing readers theatre is modeling. Students that
get to hear what text should sound like from an experienced reader are at an advantage
of knowing how to properly phrase and give expression to the text (Bear & Cathey,
1989; Eldredge, 1990). The final component of reader’s theatre is that it must provide
multiple opportunities to practice. When compared to explicit fluency instruction, the
act of rereading a text led to equally significant gains in oral reading fluency (Keehn,
2003). Practice seems to play a key role in the development of fluency.
In 1985, James Hoffman developed the Oral Recitation Lesson (ORL)
(Hoffman, 1987). The ORL is an instructional procedure used in the classroom to
develop oral reading fluency in struggling readers. The lesson includes a combination
of modeling, support and coaching, repeated reading, and performance. First, the
teacher reads a story aloud to students and the class constructs a story map of the story
together. Then, the students use the story map as a guide to write their own summary.
Later, the teacher selects a portion of the story to use in a mini-lesson that models
“good” reading. After the mini-lesson, students practice reading the selected portion
22
alone, with a partner, in groups, and/or chorally. While the students practice, the
teacher acts as a coach providing feedback, support, and praise. Practice rereading the
selection is continued until students are ready to perform the text in front of their
peers. After using ORL with second grade students, Hoffman found that students
made progress from simple word identification to comprehension. Other studies found
that students made gains in reading fluency and comprehension after receiving ORL
(Reutzel & Hollingsworth, 1993; Reutzel, Hollingsworth, & Eldredge, 1994). Perhaps
the benefits of ORL are due to balanced instruction using scaffolding, repeated
reading, and authentic purpose for reading.
Similar to the ORL, the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) developed by
Timothy Rasinski and Nancy Padak (2001), is another instructional procedure that
incorporates repeated reading. The lesson begins with a teacher read aloud. As the
teacher reads a short predictable passage or poem, students listen or follow along
silently. Once the text and rhythm of words become familiar, the class repeatedly
reads the text in variations of choral reading. Students are then paired-up to take turns
reading the text to each other, three times each, with the listener offering support and
encouragement. Partnerships perform the text in front on an audience and then keep a
copy of the text in a folder for later reading practice at school. Another copy of the
text is sent home with each student for additional practice. Students are also
encouraged to choose two or three words from the text to put on the classroom word
wall or individual word banks for word study.
23
In a 1994 study, Rasinski, Padak, Linek, and Sturtevant worked with second
grade teachers in urban schools to implement FDL. The procedure lasted from May to
October and results showed that students made substantial gains in reading fluency, as
well as, overall reading. During the study, the FDL group was compared to a similar
group of students who read the same texts but received alternative forms of reading
instruction. Again, the FDL group made greater gains in reading that transferred to
other texts than a group of students who read the same texts without FDL instruction.
FDL instruction may be more beneficial for students as a result of combining
repetition, performance, and peer-mediation.
A variation of FDL that combines repeated reading with phrase reading is the
Phrased Text Lesson (PTL). PTL is a method designed for individual students or small
groups of students. Sessions typically last 10 to 15 minutes over the course of two
consecutive days. The first day students are given a short text (around 100 words) with
phrase markings to define pauses and phrase boundaries. While the teacher reads the
text, emphasizing the phrases and pauses, students listen and follow along quietly.
Students then practice reading the text chorally and with a partner. At the end of the
first day students perform the text in front of an audience. On the second day,
everything done on day one is repeated with the exception of the text. The text is
presented the second day without phrase markings. Practicing reading the text without
phrase markings helps students transfer their knowledge of reading in phrases to other
texts. Studies on phrase markings provide evidence that students’ reading improves
when cues to phrase boundaries in text are provided (Rasinski, 1990). The benefits of
24
phrase reading move students beyond word-by-word reading to making meaning out
of text.
A more intensive practice for increasing fluency is the Neurological Impress
Method (NIM). Similar to paired reading, NIM involves a student practicing reading
with a partner who acts as a tutor. In the book, The Fluent Reader, Timothy Rasinski
(2003) explains the process of administering NIM. NIM occurs when, “The more
proficient reader reading slightly faster and louder than the student, makes a conscious
effort to direct his or her voice into the student’s left ear to “imprint” a sound-symbol
match in her head” (p.70). Due to the one-on-one nature and intensity of NIM,
sessions should be kept short, lasting fifteen minutes at the most.
In a study by Heckelman (1969), one student advanced close to six grade
levels in reading after receiving NIM for five 15-minute sessions per week for six
weeks. In the same study, 24 students made an average gain of two grade levels in
reading. Though NIM seems to be an effective strategy for increasing oral reading
fluency, the need for one-on-one tutoring to implement NIM prevents the procedure
from being a popular method used in the classroom.
Summary of Repeated Reading Activities
Among the varying literacy activities available to increase fluency four
similarities emerge. Primarily, repetition is common amid activities such as reading
poetry, partner reading or peer-mediated reading, and reader’s theatre. The need for
repetition is relevant to achieve mastery of a given text. Mastery is important because
it provides readers with a sense of accomplishment and desire to read more. As stated
25
in the book, Focus on Fluency, Nancy Cecil (2007) believes, “the optimal way to
increase fluency is to help children learn to love reading so that they will choose to
read often in their spare time, in and away from school. Children will learn to love to
read, and thus read more, if they feel they are successful in doing so…” (p. 7).
Providing students with text they can be successful with sets the foundation for future
achievement. Text should also be interesting to the reader to elicit focused
engagement, attention, and extended practice.
Providing manageable text is another similarity shared by activities that are
used to build fluency. Manageable text refers to text that is short, usually 50-500
words (Rasinski, 2003). If the text is too long students become disinterested and
repudiate practicing more. Providing readers with short passages facilitates the
practice of repetitious reading. Manageable text should also consider readability.
Selected text is readable if it meets the independent or instructional level of the reader.
At the independent level, extra support or modeling is not necessary for the reader. On
the other hand, readers may need additional help if the text is at their instructional
level. If a text cannot be mastered with support of a more proficient reader then it is
not manageable and should not be used.
The third similarity evident among fluency activities is authentic purpose.
Reading with purpose motivates readers to read more. For example, when students are
given performance criterion they strive to reread a text until the performance criterion
is met. In the program, Read Naturally, students reread a passage and record their
growth on a graph. Students keep track of progress and continually monitor how they
26
are improving as a reader. Readers acquire more difficult text as they advance through
the program. Seeing growth in reading performance can be highly motivating for
students as it provides a reason for continued reading practice.
Reading to an audience supplies another authentic purpose for reading. When
performing for an audience, there is more need to practice and engage in reading.
Students must read and reread to understand and plan their performance. Reader’s
theatre, poetry reading, and partner reading offer experiences for students to read to
others. These activities are engaging and purposeful and can improve students’ word
recognition, reading fluency, and comprehension skills significantly (Rasinski, 2003).
The final common element of fluency activities is that they provide
opportunities to practice reading a significant amount of connected text. When
students participate in reading activities repeatedly, essentially they are reading more.
Observational studies report that the amount of reading of connected text at an
appropriate level best indicates a student’s growth in reading achievement (Berliner,
1981; Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981). In other words, overall increases in
fluency development directly relate to the amount of reading practice a student
completes.
Review of Literature Related to Repeated Reading
In two major reviews on fluent reading (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; National Reading
Panel; 2000), repeated reading was accepted as a method for improving fluent reading.
Reading text repeatedly, “allows students to move beyond word reading and practice
higher linguistic structures” (Therrien & Kubina, 2006. p. 180). The idea of
27
developing linguistic structures refers to Logan’s Contextualized Linguistic Effect
(1997). This theory explains the processes necessary to build fluency. As students
reread text, they develop fluency with word recognition, become more familiar with
specific word combinations, learn prosodic shifts throughout the passage, increase
their background knowledge and build a more comprehensive understanding of the
text as a whole (Therrien & Kubina). If the practiced text is connected, studies showed
higher increases in students’ reading speed and word recognition than text practiced in
isolation (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985; Therrien & Kubina). These findings are
important considering students in the primary grades read on average less than 9
minutes per day of connected text (Gambrell, 1984). The implications for instruction
in the classroom suggest that more time should be devoted in the school day to
encouraging students to read connected text.
Reading connected text provides multiple opportunities to interact with word
patterns, phrases, and sentences which help a reader develop proficiency over what is
read. The question becomes whether connected text should be read repetitiously or
practiced over large amount of texts. In a comparison study by Kuhn and Stahl (2003),
researchers found little difference in student achievement between studies using
repetition and those using scaffolded wide reading of multiple texts. To further
investigate this issue, Kuhn et al. (2006) conducted a study using two interventions.
One intervention involved the scaffolded rereading of a single text and the other
contained scaffolded wide reading. Results showed that both approaches were equally
effective in promoting the development of word recognition, reading fluency, and
28
comprehension. Perhaps the results of this study were similar due to some repetition
existent in both approaches.
Conclusion
A thorough review of the literature that is relevant to this study was discussed
in this chapter. The literature review supported fluency development as a necessary
component to a balanced reading program. Although the definitions and measures of
fluency varied, the importance of fluency to reading development was expressed.
More specifically, the relationship between comprehending text and the rate at which
words can be recognized was identified. The theory of automaticity explained the
need for readers to recognize words automatically in order to have enough cognitive
capacity to comprehend text.
Repeated reading was validated as a method to increase fluency development.
Studies found a correlation between repeated reading and increases in rate, accuracy,
and comprehension. Best practices for implementing repeated reading in the classroom
included progress monitoring and corrective feedback. In addition, the literature
revealed that readers who are developing their fluency should be given text that is
manageable, connected, and provides an authentic purpose for reading practice.
Additional findings from this literature review reported wide reading as an
effective approach to building fluency. In fact, studies comparing wide reading to
repeated reading found similar results. Both approaches contributed to increases in
word recognition, rate, and comprehension. The current study adds to the body of
literature about fluency by examining whether a version of wide reading without
29
repetition produces similar, if not greater, results than repeated reading. In the
following chapters, a more detailed explanation of the methodology and data analysis
techniques used to interpret the results of this study is provided.
30
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Fluency is an essential component of skilled reading. Fluent reading includes
the ability to read words with accuracy and speed, self-monitor, and comprehend.
Readers who exhibit fluent reading typically choose to read more, have greater success
in school, and feel better about themselves as readers than non-fluent readers
(Rasinski, 2003). An approach used to encourage fluent reading is repeated reading.
Repeated reading provides readers with exposure to print at their independent reading
level while increasing their practice opportunities. Studies conducted on repeated
reading have found the method effective at increasing word recognition skills and
comprehension.
In 2003, Kuhn and Stahl posited the idea that the usefulness of repeated
reading may be due to the amount of time spent on oral reading practice rather than
the repetition. To date, the idea of repetition versus more practice reading has not been
thoroughly researched. The goal of the present study will be to determine if the
benefits of repeated reading are a result of repetition or wide reading.
The intent of Chapter 3 is to provide a detailed description of the current study
that allows for future replication. The subjects, instruments used, methodology
instituted, and procedures followed will be explained to gain an understanding of how
data collection was implemented in this study.
31
Sample Population
The subjects of this study were selected based on the available population of
students at the school in which the researcher worked. Thirty second grade students
who were transitioning from decoding to comprehending were studied. Out of the 30
students who were tested, 70% were White and 30% were Hispanic. Twelve were
boys and 18 were girls. Two students were pulled out for speech twice a week, two
had been retained, and six students were English Language Learners. While the study
was being conducted, two students moved to another school district and their results
from the treatment could not be completed. Table 1 shows the data for subjects
pertaining to their initial fluency and gender.
Table 1
Subject Data Pertaining to Initial Fluency and Gender
Subject
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E10
E-11
E-12
E-13
E-14
E-15
Initial
Fluency
65
13
14
61
65
51
73
76
112
68
78
80
80
89
84
Gender
Subject
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
Initial
Fluency
16
29
39
56
66
43
90
76
64
56
38
61
125
104
103
Gender
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
32
The school in which these students attended was classified as Title I and 78%
of the school’s population qualified for free or reduced lunch. Consent forms were
used to elicit participation in this study. During parent/teacher conferences, the
researcher gave parents the form to be signed and explained the purpose of the study.
Out of the 30 consent forms distributed all were signed.
Pre-Testing
Two weeks prior to the study, a pre-assessment test was administered to each
subject to determine independent reading levels. Students were tested using the
Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). The Qualitative Reading
Inventory-4 (QRI 4) was developed to provide an authentic assessment for children’s
reading abilities. The inventory includes graded word lists and both expository and
narrative reading passages from pre-primer to high school levels. The similarity of
topic and readability levels make passages from the QRI 4 very appropriate for preand post- assessment.
The first step in conducting the QRI 4 was to have each subject read from a
series of graded word lists. The word lists contain 20 words with a score of 18 or more
words correct identifying independent levels and advancing students to the next
graded word list. Scores of 14-17 words correct on the graded word lists equaled
instructional levels and scores of below 14 words correct corresponded to levels of
frustration.
Based on the results of the graded word lists, subjects were given a passage
from the QRI 4 that corresponded to their highest independent score on the graded
33
word list. The passages used for this study were all narrative. Expository texts were
not used because they sometimes require more background knowledge and the focus
of this study is fluency.
With each passage read, errors were recorded as any words missed, omitted,
substituted, self-corrected, or given to the student by the researcher after a three
second delay. Errors were then subtracted from the total of words read to determine
accuracy. Accuracy was scored by dividing the number of words read correctly from
the number of words in the passage. Accuracy percentages that fell between 98% to
100% were determined Independent, 90% to 97% Instructional, and less than 90%
accuracy was considered at a reader’s Frustration level. Subjects who scored at
Instructional or Frustration levels were given passages one level below until
Independent levels were determined.
Measuring rate was based on a formula that required the recording of total
times for reading a passage. The total time it took to read a passage was converted into
seconds, divided into the number of words in the passage times 60, and the number of
errors was subtracted from the total to produce a rate score.
Comprehension of the text was based on the number of explicit and implicit
questions a student answered correctly following the reading of a passage. Typically,
the passages contained 5 to 8 comprehension questions following the passage.
Students who answered all comprehension questions correctly were considered
Independent while students who incorrectly answered 1 to 2 questions were
considered Instructional. Frustration levels for students resulted from incorrectly
34
answering 3 or more questions. Similar to accuracy scores, subjects who scored at
Instructional or Frustration levels for comprehension were given passages one level
below until Independent levels were determined.
In addition to QRI 4 assessments, subjects were trained on how to participate
in the study during the two-week pre-testing period. The researcher modeled how to
read a passage and circle unknown words. Subjects were also shown how to time
themselves with a battery operated minute timer and record time spent reading a
passage and the number of words read correctly in one minute. In addition, the
researcher demonstrated answering the comprehension questions after each passage
and how to write a retelling. Trainings on how to participate in the study lasted
approximately 20 minutes and occurred twice over the two-week pre-testing period.
Treatment
This study took place over the course of eight weeks. For the first two weeks
of the study, a pre-assessment test was administered to determine independent reading
levels. The test was given in a quiet location at a table in the back of a classroom with
just the researcher, subject, and tape recorder. The tape recorder provided a means to
triangulate the data found.
Based on pre-assessment results, accuracy and fluency scores were used to
place students into their independent reading groups. Through this arrangement, five
groups were created: Pre-Primer (PP), Primer (P), First (F), Second (S), and Third
(TH). Table 2 shows totals for each group.
35
Table 2
Independent Reading Group Levels
Reading Level
Number of Subjects
Pre-Primer(PP)
5
Primer(P)
8
First(F)
9
Second(S)
3
Third(TH)
5
Once the reading groups were established, assignment to the treatment or
control group was conducted using an alternating design. For example, the group
identified as (PP) were divided as follows: subject one was assigned treatment, subject
two was assigned the control, subject three was assigned treatment, subject four was
assigned the control, and subject five was assigned treatment. The next treatment
group began assignment with the control to ensure an equal number of subjects in each
group. A graphic representation of the assignment to groups is illustrated in Table 3.
36
Table 3
Assignment to Groups
Treatment
Control
PP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
S1
S2
S3
TH1
TH2
TH3
TH4
TH5
37
After subjects were alternately assigned a group, a total of 15 subjects were
assigned the treatment and 15 subjects assigned the control. Out of the 15 subjects
assigned the treatment, 3 students were Pre-Primer, 5 were Primer, 4 were First, 2
were Second, and 2 were Third. In the control, subjects consisted of 2 students at the
Pre-Primer Level, 4 at the Primer Level, 5 at the First Grade Level, 1 at the Second
Grade Level, and 3 at the Third Grade Level. Table 4 displays the totals of subjects at
each reading level assigned to either the treatment or the control.
Table 4
Totals of Levels for Each Group
Reading Level
Treatment Group
Control Group
Pre-Primer(PP)
3
2
Primer(P)
4
4
First(F)
4
5
Second(S)
2
1
Third(TH)
2
3
Total = 15 subjects
Total = 15 subjects
Subjects assigned the treatment were given one text a day to read repeatedly.
Each day, the subjects would read a single text four times. The subjects would time
each read with a timer pre-set to one minute, and record the number of words they
38
read. After reading the text a total of four times, the subjects would answer
comprehension questions corresponding to the story they read.
Alternatively, subjects in the control were given four texts a day and each text
was read only once. After reading a text, the subjects would answer comprehension
questions, and then proceed to read the next text and answer questions until they had
read all four texts or the intervention ended.
Data collection took place over the course of a four-week period. In both
groups, students engaged in reading and answering questions for 20 minutes each day,
four days a week. Absences and texts read in each group were recorded on a daily
basis by the researcher.
Testing Instruments
For the purposes of this study, passages from the Read Naturally program
provided manageable connected text for the students to practice reading. Texts ranged
in length from 68 words to 154 words. As subjects read each passage, the researcher
encouraged them to circle any words they didn’t know. Circling unknown words
helped aid in providing subjects with corrective feedback so on subsequent reads, the
same errors would not be made. Students monitored their progress each day by
recording the time it took to read a passage and the number of correct words read in
one minute. Students also met with the researcher to discuss the accuracy of answers
on comprehension questions. Utilizing progress monitoring and corrective feedback in
the study provided a means to increase motivation and accuracy in reading. Read
Naturally passages were assigned to each student based on their independent reading
39
level. Given the number of students in a classroom, providing texts at independent
levels allows students to practice fluency development without the help of a teacher or
more proficient reader.
The source, Read Naturally, was selected for use in the study for three reasons.
First, Read Naturally was already a source available at the school the subjects
attended. Second, the source offered a variety of texts at differing levels. Finally, when
compared to levels from the QRI 4, Read Naturally corresponded closely for
independent reading levels as displayed in Table 5.
Table 5
QRI-4 Levels Equivalent to Read Naturally Passages
QRI 4 Level
Read Naturally Passage(s)
Pre-Primer
.8 – 1.0
Primer
1.0 – 1.3
First
1.3 – 1.5
Second
1.5 – 2.0
Third
2.0 – 3.0
Text selections were gathered and copied during the pre-assessment period for
use during the four-week treatment period. Based on pre-assessment scores from the
QRI 4, independent reading levels were correlated to passages from Read Naturally.
Pre- Primer QRI 4 scores correlated with 0.8 – 1.0 level passages from Read
40
Naturally. Students who scored at the primer level on the QRI 4 read independent
levels 1.0 – 1.3 in Read Naturally. First grade independent levels on the QRI 4
coincided with Read Naturally passages 1.3 – 1.5. For subjects who read at a second
grade level on the QRI 4, the related Read Naturally passages were 1.5 – 2.0. Students
who scored at third grade levels on the QRI 4 equated with 2.0 – 3.0 Read Naturally
texts. There were no subjects in this study that scored beyond third grade levels on the
QRI 4.
After the four-week treatment period, the remaining two weeks of the study
were spent administering a post-assessment. Similar to the pre-test, the instrument
used for the post-test was the QRI 4. However, a different narrative text than was used
on the pre-test was used for the post-test to determine the generalization of the results.
Data Analysis Methods
Using a t-Test for Independent Samples, data analysis included a comparison
of pre-treatment and post-treatment fluency scores to determine if the differences in
scores were statistically significant. T values were calculated for each group and are
presented and discussed in chapter 4.
In addition to analyzing t values, a teacher-made attitude survey was given to
all subjects after the study to determine if motivation had a role in either treatment
group (see Appendix).
Conclusion
This study was designed to determine whether reading increases in fluency are
due to repetition or extensive reading of multiple texts (also called wide-reading). Past
41
research suggests both approaches are beneficial to increasing fluency (Kuhn & Stahl,
2003; Kuhn et al., 2006).
For this study, thirty second graders were selected to participate. Pre- and posttests were given to determine accuracy, fluency, and comprehension gains made
during the four-week treatment period. A group that performed wide reading acted as
the control while the treatment group read repeatedly. Scores from each group were
calculated and are presented in Chapter 4.
42
Chapter 4
DATA AND RESULTS
This study was designed to measure the effects of repeated reading and
practice reading without repetition on fluency development. The sample population in
this study was second grade students whose fluency scores needed to reach or exceed
80 words per minute by the end of the year. Fifteen students from two different
classrooms at a Title I school in California practiced reading text repeatedly for four
weeks. Their fluency scores, as measured by words read correctly per minute, were
compared to a matched control group of 15 second graders who practiced wide
reading without repetition. The basis of the comparison was described in Chapter 3.
A pre-test was given two weeks prior to the treatment using the Qualitative
Reading Inventory 4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). This assessment measured students’
rate, comprehension, and accuracy on a passage at their independent reading level.
After the four-week treatment, the assessment was administered again to gain posttreatment results on rate, comprehension, and accuracy for each subject.
This chapter will describe the analysis from the pre- and post-tests using a t
test to determine if the differences of the results from the two groups are significant.
Any patterns or trends in the data not related to the t-test will also be included. Finally,
this chapter will discuss factors and variables that could have impacted the outcome of
the study.
43
Results from the t Test
To determine if the reading fluency scores of both the experimental group and
control group were significantly different, a t test calculated for independent samples
was conducted. The raw data is available in Table 6.
Table 6
Fluency Scores Used to Compare the Experimental (X1) and the Control Group (X2)
Pre-Treatment
X1
65
13
14
61
65
51
73
76
112
68
78
80
80
89
84
X2
16
29
39
56
66
43
90
76
64
56
38
61
125
104
103
Post-Treatment
X1
74
28
25
70
72
58
68
106
133
88
99
66
76
94
83
X2
46
48
43
78
62
64
98
100
67
71
64
64
123
89
107
The following t values were obtained. Comparing the pre-treatment data,
which consists of fluency scores for both the control group and experimental group, a t
value was calculated to be 0.280. Since the groups were matched, a low t value was
expected, as there should be no significant difference between the groups before
44
treatment. With 28 degrees of freedom, a t value of 2.049 or higher would show the
data to be significantly different at the .05 level.
After the treatment period a value for t was calculated to determine if fluency
scores obtained by the two groups of students after the four-week treatment were
significantly different. A t value of 0.115 was obtained. This t value shows that the
differences of scores between the experimental group and control group decreased
after the treatment period. A t value of 2.049 or higher would have had to be present to
show any significant differences between the two groups of scores.
Based on an analysis of the data, there was no significant difference in the
fluency scores obtained by the group that read text repeatedly and the control group
that practiced reading without repetition. The next step in the study was to investigate
if there was any significant difference between the pre-treatment scores and the posttreatment scores of the two groups. The data for analysis is shown in Tables 7 and 8.
45
Table 7
Comparing Pre-treatment Fluency Scores and Post-treatment Fluency Scores for the
Experimental Group
Experimental Group Scores
PreTreatment
65
13
14
61
65
51
73
76
112
68
78
80
80
89
84
PostTreatment
74
28
25
70
72
58
68
106
133
88
99
66
76
94
83
46
Table 8
Comparing Pre-treatment Fluency Scores and Post-treatment Fluency Scores for the
Control Group
Control Group Scores
PreTreatment
16
29
39
56
66
43
90
76
64
56
38
61
125
104
103
PostTreatment
46
48
43
78
62
64
98
100
67
71
64
64
123
89
107
The t value when analyzing the pre-treatment and post-treatment fluency
scores for the experimental group was calculated to be 0.906, far short of a t value of
2.049 needed to show significant differences between the two groups of scores.
Similarly, the value of t when analyzing the pre-treatment and post-treatment fluency
scores of the control group was calculated to be 1.067. Though there is some evidence
in gains in the reading scores from the pre-treatment to the post-treatment assessment
scores, especially with the control group, they are not statistically significant enough
to show that one group out performed the other on fluency measures.
47
Analysis and Discussion
Although the t tests did not show significant gains in fluency for either group, a
discussion of patterns or trends in the data not related to the t test may still prove
useful for determining best teaching practices to develop fluency. In addition, factors
and variables that could have affected the outcome of the research are important to
examine for future research.
Overall, fluency scores that projected growth were very similar for both the
experimental group and the control group. A total of 12 out of 15 students in the
control group improved their fluency scores compared to 11 out of 15 in the
experimental group. Since the number of subjects is small, it is difficult to make
generalizations about the effectiveness of using repeated reading and/or practice
reading without repetition to improve fluency. However, it is important to recognize
that both practices showed increases in fluency development. More research in this
area is necessary.
Upon further investigation, growth rates for each group showed an average
increase of fourteen words per minute. While the level of improvement was not
statistically significant, there does appear to be a trend in the desired direction for
students in both groups suggesting that reading text repeatedly, as well as practiced
reading without repetition, improves fluency development.
An examination of individual scores shows that some students made
substantial growth in raising their fluency scores. In the experimental group, subjects
E-8, E-9, E-10, and E-11 all increased their fluency scores by twenty or more words
48
per minute. Similarly, in the control group, subjects C-1, C-4, C-6, and C-11 increased
their overall fluency scores by 30, 22, 21, and 26 words per minute. Though these
gains are considerable, there were students in both groups who, despite the four weeks
of reading practice, scored lower in fluency.
Further examination of students who scored lower on fluency measures after
the treatment period revealed a possible trend in gender. Among the male students
who scored lower on their fluency scores, all were from the experimental group. No
males from the control group exhibited a decrease in scores after the treatment. A
possible explanation for this trend is that males preferred reading a wide-range of text
to reading text repeatedly. In contrast, students whose fluency scores declined in the
control group were all female. These results seem to suggest repeated reading may be
more advantageous to girls while reading a range of text may be more beneficial to
boys in measures to increase fluency scores. This area of research deserves further
research.
In addition to gender, another variable that could have affected the results of
this study was the relatively short amount of time the treatment was given to the
students. Due to the time at which the study was conducted, a four-week treatment
period was necessary to ensure results unaffected by vacations and breaks in the
school’s schedule. Had the study been extended for a longer period of time, the
increases in fluency scores may have proven statistically significant. For example,
similar studies on the effects of repeated reading and reading fluency showed
significant results with six, seven, and eight-week treatment periods (Dowhower,
49
1987; Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993; Kuhn, 2004-2005; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Despite
the short treatment period, the time during which the students spent on fluency
practice, during the treatment, followed the parameters of research literature
concerning fluency practice. In a study by Dowhower (1987), students practiced
fluency activities for 15 minutes per day, five days a week, for a total of 75 minutes
per week. Another study by Kuhn (2004-2005), had students participate in either a
repeated reading or scaffolded reading intervention for 15 to 20 minutes per day, three
days a week, for a total of 45 to 60 minutes per week. Following these guidelines, this
study required students to practice reading 20 minutes per day, four days a week, for a
total of 80 minutes. Though the amount of time spent practicing reading for this study
was slightly more than previous studies per week, the fact that students had less weeks
to practice could have impacted the results.
One additional factor to consider when analyzing the results of this study is the
level of student engagement. During the elementary school years, a clear trend in the
decline of reading interest has been observed (McKenna, Ellsworth, & Kear, 1995). In
their study on student perceptions about reading, McKenna et al. found that students’
attitudes towards reading began to decline after first grade. To measure if attitudes did
affect the results of this study a reading interest survey was given to all participants
two weeks after the treatment period (see Appendix). The summary of answers from
the survey are presented in Table 9.
50
Table 9
Answers to Reading Attitude Survey
Yes
Do you like to
read?
Are you a good
reader?
Do you like to
read the same
story over and
over again?
Do you like to
read a lot of
different
books?
Do you like to
read for a long
time?
Do you read at
home?
Does someone
read to you at
home?
No
Treatment
15
Control
15
Treatment
0
Control
0
12
10
3
5
6
7
9
8
15
14
0
1
9
8
6
7
13
15
2
0
4
5
11
10
Based on the answers to the reading interest survey, subjects’ attitudes towards
reading were similar regardless of the fluency strategy they practiced in this study. All
subjects from the experimental group and the control group reported that they liked
reading. Only slightly fewer subjects from the control group described themselves as
good readers than the experimental group. While 10 subjects reported being good
readers from the control group, 12 subjects from the experimental group stated that
they were good readers. Since the survey was given after the treatment period,
51
attitudes before the treatment began are not comparable. Therefore, the presence of
more subjects asserting that they are good readers in the treatment group may be a
reflection of pre-treatment attitudes and not the result of perceptions developed during
the treatment period.
The data gained from the reading attitude survey does indicate that most
students participating in the study reported that they not only liked to read, but also
liked to read a variety of different texts. The results also showed that the majority of
students thought of themselves as a good reader. Considering the positive attitudes
elicited from the reading interest survey, both fluency practices of repeated reading
and wide reading without repetition seem to have sustained student engagement and
motivation.
Conclusion
In general, it appears that the experimental group and the control group were
similarly effective in promoting the development of reading fluency. Although the
statistical analysis of the data in this study showed no significant differences in the
fluency scores of students practicing repeated reading and reading without repetition,
the trends and patterns observed do support some practical implications for classroom
practices. These implications and practices will be discussed in Chapter 5 along with
an overview of the study conducted. The need for future research in the area of
reading fluency practices will also be considered in the following chapter.
52
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if positive gains in reading fluency
were the result of repetition or extensive reading practice. A review of literature over
the course of the past 50 years on fluency development, supplied evidence for using
repeated reading activities in the classroom to increase the rate at which students read.
Studies also showed that repeated reading impacted comprehension and accuracy in
reading. One factor considered in the literature on fluency was that readers who were
asked to read text repeatedly were in effect practicing reading more (Kuhn & Stahl,
2003; Kuhn et al., 2006). This chapter will review the study conducted, provide a
discussion of future implications for classroom reading instruction, and offer
suggestions for further research.
Overview of the Study
Research began with a thorough review of literature on fluency development.
More specifically, studies conducted on repeated reading as a method to increase
fluency were collected, compared, and analyzed. Most of the research agreed on the
benefits of repeated reading to increase fluency. These studies revealed a strong
correlation between repeated reading and comprehension, accuracy, and word rate
gains. Corrective feedback and progress monitoring were also strategies found to,
when combined with repeated reading, positively impacted fluency development.
53
Another approach to fluency development found to be as effective as repeated
reading in the literature was wide reading with scaffolding. In fact, some researchers
established that the most significant factor in predicting a child’s growth in reading
achievement was the amount of connected reading practiced at an appropriate level
(Berliner, 1981; Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981). In the case of this study,
“appropriate levels” referred to the subjects’ independent reading levels. To determine
whether a version of wide reading without repetition produced similar results to
repeated reading, this study investigated the effects of both approaches.
Initial fluency data was collected from students in second grade attending a
Title One school. To place students in text at their independent levels, the Qualitative
Reading Inventory 4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) was administered prior to the start of
the study. Passages from Read Naturally that corresponded to the students’
independent levels were assigned and read daily by subjects in both the control and
treatment groups. Assignment to each group was conducted using an alternating model
of placement.
Students who practiced reading text repeatedly acted as the treatment group.
They were given one text per day and asked to read it four times. In contrast, students
who practiced wide reading acted as the control and were given four different texts a
day to practice without repetition. The treatment lasted for a total of four weeks where
students from both groups engaged in reading for twenty minutes per day, four days a
week. After the treatment period, the Qualitative Reading Inventory 4 was
administered again to compare pre- and post-data results.
54
An analysis of results from the study revealed no statistically significant
differences in the reading rates between the experimental group and the control group.
Although some students seemed to make substantial gains in reading rate, the analysis
of data showed that the differences between the pre assessment scores and post
assessment scores of both groups were not statistically significant.
Suggestions for Further Research
A consideration to make when conducting research on reading fluency is the
duration of the intervention. While this study was conducted over a relatively short
period of time, it is possible that a more extended intervention could produce
statistically significant results. As reviewed in the research literature, interventions
lasting six to eight weeks have produced significant gains in reading fluency. In
addition, reading sessions were reported to be most effective when conducted 15 to 20
minutes per day with a minimum of three days per week.
Another factor to consider in future research is the sample size and population
of subjects. Although the intention of this study was to use a small sample size
indicative of a typical classroom environment, the results cannot be generalized to
other populations of students. Nevertheless, the results of this study could provide
useful to teachers in the classroom setting who are working with struggling readers at
a Title One school. Further studies however, should include a greater sampling of
students across grade-levels and schools. Perhaps with a larger sample size, positive
results could emerge that showed statistical significance.
55
As suggested in chapter four, investigating gender preferences for reading
practice may prove beneficial in determining the effectiveness of fluency-orientated
approaches. Further research in this area could help ascertain whether students should
be encouraged to read repeatedly or practice reading a wide range of nonrepetitive text
based on their gender. Additional studies could also examine whether gender
preferences for fluency-orientated approaches remained the same or changed, as
students grew older.
Instructional Implications and Conclusions
Helping beginning readers make the transition from decoding words to fluent
reading is a struggle many teachers face. Approaches to fluency development, such as
repeated reading and wide reading, provide a resource for teachers to use in the
classroom. Although these fluency-orientated approaches did not significantly
improve the reading rate of subjects in this study, they are researched based and
recommended methods of instruction.
One common variable apparent in both approaches is the increased amount of
time students spent practicing reading connected text. Considering reports on
elementary aged students averaging less than 9 minutes per day reading connected text
(Gambrell, 1984), time spent reading in the classroom is a critical factor for teachers
to examine. In a review of fluency-based instructional approaches, Kuhn and Stahl
(2003) posited the idea that these approaches work by simply “increasing the amount
of supported reading children do and that it is this that leads to gains in achievement,
rather than the repetition per se” (p. 362). The results of their research concluded that
56
both repeated reading and wide reading were effective in promoting skills related to
the development of reading fluency. With positive results following the use of either
method, it seems less important for teachers to debate the type of fluency-based
approach used in the classroom. What is critical is that teachers are implementing one
or more of these approaches, and that they are providing students the necessary
practice of reading connected text each day.
Teachers may also want to take into consideration the age and appropriateness
of each fluency-based approach in their classroom. For instance, younger or struggling
students may benefit from repeated reading and the use of manageable text. Reading a
text repetitiously to achieve a certain goal is proven to increase student motivation and
self-efficacy. For older students though, repetitive reading may be tiresome and result
in negative attitudes towards reading. A more appropriate approach for building
fluency in older students might be wide reading. As presented in chapter four of this
study, even students in second grade reported preferences for reading a variety of text.
Teachers should keep in mind though, that a combination of different methods is
perhaps the best way to provide students with the opportunity to practice reading and
build their fluency.
Summary
In an attempt to control for the effects of extended reading practice resulting
from repeated reading activities, this study compared the data from two fluencyorientated approaches. The first approach involved repeated reading and characterized
the experimental group. Another group that practiced wide reading with nonrepetitive
57
text acted as the control. An analysis of the data concluded that neither approach
produced statistically significant increases in reading rate. Beyond statistical analysis,
other measures presented in this study suggested positive outcomes that were similar
for both groups. These findings are consistent with research suggesting that wide
reading approaches benefit the development of reading as much as repetition. Perhaps
then, the key to optimizing fluency development depends on a balance of both
methods. Future studies in the area of this research have the potential of helping
teachers make informed decisions about best practices for developing reading fluency
for all students.
58
APPENDIX
Reading Attitude Survey
59
Name ___________________
Reading Attitude Survey
1. Do you like to read?
 
2.
Are you a good reader?
 
3. Do you like to read the
same story over and over
again?
 
4. Do you like to read a
lot of different books?
 
60
5. Do you like to read for
a long time?
 
6. Do you read at home?
 
7. Does someone read to
you at home?
 
61
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barr, R., Sadow, M. W., & Blachowics, C. L. Z. (1990). Reading diagnosis for
teachers. New York: Longman.
Bear, D. R. (1992). The prosody of oral reading and stages of word knowledge. In D.
R. Bear & Templeton (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the
foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp.
137-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bear, D., & Cathey, S. (1989, November). Writing and reading fluency and
orthographic awareness. Paper presented at the meeting of the National
Reading Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Berliner, D. C. (1981). Academic learning time and reading achievement. In J. T.
Gutherie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 203-226).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M.,
Shaywitz, B. A., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for
second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 444-461.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cecil, N. L. (2007). Focus on fluency: A meaning-based approach. Scottsdale, AZ:
Holcomb Hathaway.
62
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective
interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386-406.
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., & Wichmann, A. (2002). Prosodic characteristics of
skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8-10-year-old readers.
Language and Speech, 45, 47-82.
Dahl, P. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word
recognition and comprehension skills. In J. E. Button, T. Lovitt, & T. Rowland
(Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental
retardation (pp. 33-65). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A
brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to
implement oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 8394.
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional
readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389406.
Dowhower, S. L. (1989). Repeated reading: Theory into practice. The Reading
Teacher, 42, 502-507.
Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daly, E. J., III, & Martens, B. K. (2002). Improving oral
reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent
63
intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35,
271-280.
Ekwall, E. (1989). Locating and correcting reading difficulties. Columbus, OH:
Merrill Publishing Company.
Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third grade
with a group-assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 69-77.
Fleisher, L., Jenkins, J., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers’ comprehension of
training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 30-48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as
an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical
analysis. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5, 239-256.
Gambrell, L. B. (1984). How much time do children spend reading during teacherdirected reading instruction? In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Changing
perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction,
Thirty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 193-198).
Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Gibb, G. S., & Wilder, L. K. (2002). Using functional analysis to improve reading
instruction for students with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral
disorders. Preventing School Failure, 46, 152-157.
Gough, P. B. (1984). Word recognition. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 225-254). New York: Longman.
64
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability.
Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability: A guide to
developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable
assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644.
Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological impress method of reading instruction.
Academic Therapy, 4, 277-282.
Hoffman, J. V. (1987). Rethinking the role of oral reading in basal instruction.
Elementary School Journal, 87, 367-373.
Hoffman, J. V., & Crone, S. (1985). The oral recitation lesson: A research-derived
strategy for reading basal texts. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in
literacy: A research perspective, 34th yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 76-83). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated reading and
nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. The Journal
of Educational Research, 87, 94-100.
Jenkins, J. R., Barksdale, A., & Clinton, L. R. (1978). Improving reading
comprehension and oral reading: Generalizations across behaviors, settings,
and time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 5-14.
65
Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through reader’s theatre on
young readers’ oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42, 4061.
Kubina, R. M., & Therrien, W. J. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated
reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 156-160.
Kuhn, M. R. (2004-2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction.
Reading Psychology, 26, 127-146.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D. G.,
Meisinger, E. B., et al. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent readers and
automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 357-387.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects.
American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343-361.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative Reading Inventory-IV. Boston: Pearson.
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory
of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 123-146.
McKenna, M. C., Ellsworth, R. A., & Kear, D. J. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward
reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.
Moyer, S. B. (1982). Repeated reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 619-623.
66
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidenced-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction-reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health and Development.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching
(3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in
learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180-188.
Rasinski, T. V. (1990). The effects of cued phrased boundaries in text. Bloomington,
IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills (ED313689).
Rasinski, T. V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146151.
Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school curriculum.
Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 510-522.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (2001). From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching of
decoding and reading fluency in the elementary school. New York: Longman.
67
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, B. (1994). Effects of fluency
development on urban second-grade readers. The Journal of Educational
Research, 87, 158-165.
Reutsel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1993). Effects of fluency training on second
graders’ reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 325331.
Reutsel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Eldredege, L. (1994). Oral reading
instruction: The impact on student reading comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 29, 40-62.
Richards, M. (2000). Be a good detective: Solve the case of oral reading fluency. The
Reading Teacher, 53, 543-539.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddel, M.
R. Ruddel, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading
(4th ed., pp. 864-894). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32,
403-408.
Samuels, S. J., Dahl, P., & Archwamety, T. (1974). Effects of hypothesis/test training
on reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 835-844.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory
Into Practice, 30, 158-164.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J., & Stahl, S. A.
(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the
68
oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119129.
Scott, T. M., & Shearer-Lingo, A. (2002). The effects of reading fluency instruction
on the academic and behavioral success of middle school students in a selfcontained EBD classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46, 167-174.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37, 25-60.
Stanovich, K. E. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A
confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology.
RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 5, 11-19.
Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read
words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 276-288.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated
reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial & Special Education, 25, 252-261.
Therrien, W. J., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated
reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 156-160.
Topping, K. (1989). Peer tutoring and paired reading. Combining two powerful
techniques. The Reading Teacher, 42, 488-494.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency.
NAEP Facts (GovtDoc ED 1.335:1/1). Washington, DC: Author.
69
Wilfong, L. G. (2008). Building fluency, word recognition ability, and confidence in
struggling readers: The poetry academy. The Reading Teacher, 62, 4-13.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific
Studies in Reading, 5, 211-239.
Worthy, J., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group
performance to silent, independent reading. The Reading Teacher, 55, 334343.
Yurick, A. L., Robinson, P. D., Cartledge, G., Lo, Y., & Evans, T. L. (2006). Using
peer-mediated repeated readings as a fluency-building activity for urban
learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 469-506.